“Baby Veronica” adoption finalized

Posted Wed, July 24th, 2013 4:22 pm by Lyle Denniston

Moving to put an early end to “this emotionally charged case,” the South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered into effect a decision awarding full legal custody of the child known as “Baby Veronica” to a couple in that state, rejecting further challenges by the child’s father in Oklahoma. While the father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, has been attempting in state court and in a tribal court to keep the child in his family, those courts have not yet reacted.

The father has the option of returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he lost last month on his legal claims, and could ask the Justices in the meantime to delay the turnover of the child to the South Carolina couple. The child will be four years old in September. The adopting couple has proposed a “transition plan” that will mean the child would not begin to live with them for a short period.

The state court declared that “nothing further” remains to be decided, and so it ordered a family court in the state to act “forthwith” to approve the adoption of the child by Matt and Melanie Capobianco, who live near Charleston. It refused to delay the case any further, denying a postponement request by the father — Dusten Brown of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, supported by the Cherokee tribe.

“It is our fervent hope,” the state court commented, “that the parties will work together in good faith and place the best interest and welfare of Baby Girl above their own desires. This emotionally charged case was fully litigated in the South Carolina courts and the United States Supreme Court. This case has reached finality….That finality should be honored.”

Although all five members of the state’s highest court agreed that the birth father’s rights as a parent should be terminated, it divided by a three-to-two vote on the mandate for the family court to make the adoption final without further proceedings. The two dissenting judges on that point also said they would have approved a delay of the case while the family court made a final decision on custody.

The court said that the adopting couple had said throughout the legal dispute that they intended to raise the child “in a manner that maintains a meaningful connectedness to her Native American heritage.”

It praised the couple for submitting a “thoughtful transition plan.” The brief opinion did not spell out the terms of that plan, but it is understood that the Capobiancos will go to Oklahoma to spend perhaps up to two weeks, during which time they will work with a counselor to try to arrange for the child’s transition into their family. The state Supreme Court said it would leave to the family court whether to approve the specifics of that plan.

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

The Supreme Court released additional orders from the December 8 conference on Monday. The justices will meet next for their January 5 conference. The calendar for the January sitting, which begins on January 8, is available on the Supreme Court's website.

Major Cases

United States v. Microsoft Corp.Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

Gill v. Whitford(1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

Carpenter v. United StatesWhether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

Conference of January 5, 2018

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in conflict with the decisions of three courts of appeals, erred in exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over a pre-trial order denying a motion to dismiss following a full trial on the merits; (2) whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign's interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and District of Columbia Circuits), or whether a court is “bound to defer” to a foreign government's legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit); and (3) whether a court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis, as a matter of discretionary international comity, over an otherwise valid Sherman Antitrust Act claim involving purely domestic injury.